October
2, 2003

Yellow Springs school administrators and school board
members made their case to the public last week for the two property tax
levies the district has placed on the Nov. 4 ballot.

At the school board’s meeting Sept. 23, officials
stressed that the two levies — an emergency levy and a permanent
improvement levy — are both renewals and reductions of current levies
and would result in a total of $408,990 in savings for local residents.

“We’re
saying that we can maintain a district that we can be proud of and have
villagers pay a little less than they pay now,” Superintendent Tony
Armocida said.

Several of the 11
community members who attended the meeting expressed support for the levies,
and no one criticized the ballot issues.

But some audience
members cautioned the district not to be complacent during the levy campaign.
“Don’t take it for granted,” said former school board
member Judy Leighty. “There’s some resistance.”

The school district
is seeking to renew the emergency levy at 10.1 mills. It would generate
$1.06 million a year, or 17 percent of Yellow Springs school funding,
for ongoing operating expenses such as salaries. If approved by voters,
the levy would go into effect in January 2005 and would last three years.

Scheduled to expire
at the end of 2004, the emergency levy is currently 10.3 mills and brings
in $1.086 million a year. It was last approved in 1999.

The second levy renewal,
the 1.2-mill permanent improvement levy, would provide the schools $69,000
per year for the schools’ technology needs and bus purchases. The
five-year levy would go into effect at the beginning of next year.

The levy would generate
$330,000 less than the current permanent improvement levy, which is 2.2
mills and generates $135,000 a year. Set to expire at the end of the year,
the permanent improvement levy was last approved by voters in 1998.

Armocida said that
passage of both levies this fall would result in reduced property taxes.
Together the levies would save a property owner $63 per $100,000 of appraised
property value, according to the district.

Several board members
said that they are not aware of other school districts that are asking
voters for reduced amounts of property taxes.

“Health care
is skyrocketing, utilities are going up, we should be asking for more
taxes,” said board member Rich Bullock. Not doing so, he said, “is
a major accomplishment. I don’t know of any other school district
where this is happening.”

Several factors have
contributed to the board’s opportunity to seek the lower tax amounts,
Armocida said.

The passage of the
1 percent school income tax in 2001 helped to diversify the district’s
funding sources, which, he called, “an advantage.”

“It brings
us to the point where we can do this,” he said. The district said
that it expects to receive $1.28 million a year in school income tax revenue.

Board members said
that they remained committed to attempting to reduce property taxes, a
pledge they made during the income tax campaign.

The Yellow Springs
schools are also benefiting from increased income from open enrollment
students, whose fees have helped the school district realize a $300,000
profit a year, Armocida said.

More students are
attending Yellow Springs schools under the open enrollment policy this
year as a result of the school board’s decision to expand the program
beyond neighboring districts.

Some community members
suggested that the district make clear in the levy campaign the success
of the open enrollment policy. “You should emphasize the quality
of the schools and the fact that they attract outside students,”
said Pat Olds. “That has not always been the case.”

In a discussion of
funding sources, Treasurer Joy Kitzmiller outlined the school’s
proposed sources of income. Continuing property taxes provide 35 percent
of school income, and the income tax would provide about 20 percent. State
revenues, which have been reduced in all districts this year, would provide
about 18 percent, and the emergency levy would provide 17 percent. Open
enrollment would provide 7 percent, local revenue 2 percent and the permanent
improvement levy, about 1 percent. The district’s total revenue
would be $6.396 million.

Kitzmiller also explained
that Ohio has two basic categories for state funding, based on an area’s
property values and number of students. Because Yellow Springs is relatively
wealthy and has a small number of students, the district receives considerably
less than what other districts receive, she said. While the average per
pupil state payment is $4,900, Yellow Springs receives about $1,000 per
student, she said.

Several board members
expressed concern over some misconceptions regarding the proposed levies.
For instance, board president Tom Haugsby said some villagers believe
that because the school income tax passed two years ago, the schools no
longer need income from property taxes.

Board members also
said that others became confused when Greene County reappraised property
values last year, producing higher property taxes for many. This coincided
with the school board’s stated desire to lower property taxes, board
members said.

“When you see
the facts it makes a strong case,” board member Mary Campbell-Zopf
said. “But it’s hard to get the whole picture out there.”